The seemingly never-ending case of Gary McKinnon, the self-confessed ‘X-Files’ hacker has taken another turn. In an increasingly-desperate bid to prevent McKinnon’s extradition to the US to face trial for his 2002 hacking exploits, his legal team are petitioning the newly-formed Supreme Court in the UK to hear his appeal.

McKinnon’s lawyers believe they have a shot; the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal against extradition to the US of another man, Ian Norris, who is wanted on charges of price-fixing, on the grounds that he has prostate cancer.

On the face of it, the cases have paralells; both McKinnon and Norris have diagnosed medical conditions – McKinnon has Aspergers Syndrome – and stands accused of crimes which took place many years ago. The Norris case has one important difference, however; cartels were not illegal in the UK at the time he his alleged to have committed his crimes. By contrast, McKinnon knew that what he was doing was illegal, but was never prosecuted by the British courts, even though they had the power to do so and his crimes took place in the UK .

The latest appeal petition comes as a cross-party group of UK members of parliament mount a fresh campaign on McKinnon’s behalf to force Alan Johnson, the UK Home Secretary, to intervene in the case. Johnson had previously said that he had no power to intervene in the extradition proceedings, but the delegation of MPs has presented an opposing legal argument, arguing that Johnson could legally intervene to halt the extradition.

This case just never seems to reach a conclusion. McKinnon has launched myriad appeals and explored more or less every legal avenue to prevent his extradition. His case has garnered widespread publicity and support, particularly in the UK where the public worry that he will not face a fair trial – or reasonable punishment – in the US.

McKinnon has become a pawn in a much larger political game. Some members of the coalition of MPs (not to mention newspapers) campaigning on his behalf may have their motivations more firmly rooted in party politics – wishing to garner negative press for the incumbent Labour government – than in genuine concern for the welfare of a self-confessed computer hacker. Whilst McKinnon is no doubt grateful for any support he receives, I wouldn’t be surprised if he feels more than a little used.

At the root of much of the grass-roots support for the McKinnon campaign is a feeling of inequality between US and UK extradition agreements. The US can extradite UK citizens without presenting detailed evidence or allowing their quarry to properly respond in UK courts. The UK, by contrast, has a much tougher job persuading the US to extradite its own citizens for trial. Whilst many people may not have any special sympathy for McKinnon himself, his case has become a focal point for those who believe the UK gives too much assistance to the US and do not see reciprocation.

Whatever happens to McKinnon, his case has shed some light on the shady and often Kafkaesque workings of the UK legal system.

Reader Comments

http://garystays.co.uk HughMWright

Gary’s case highlights as you said many dodgy legal issues primarily the extradition treaty signed in secret and never debated in parliament where any british citizen can be dragged off on no evidence whatsoever whereas the other way around evidence, contestable in a US court, is required. Seven years ago the crown prosecution was told ‘from the very top’ to refuse to prosecute, thus allowing a backdoor rendition to take place. In the recent court hearing we finally had a disclosure of the American presentation on the alledged damage which Gary always emphatically denies(damage is a requisite for an extradition)and the lawyers for the Crown prosecution Service (CPS)had dismissed virtually all of it as hear-say and inadmissable and questioned the lack of adherance to procedure when Gary’s computers were removed to the US (illegally I might add)
In Norris the law lords dismissed the case because price fixing was not a crime in the UK at that time. But America are now extraditing him for destroying evidence of the crime that wasn’t a crime??
Gary could and should be tried here in the UK anything else is bending the rule of UK law so that American can make a scapegoat/example of him because of their password-lacking-security. Lets face it how many terrorists leave hundreds of notes saying “your security is shit”